Call it a living lesson in civics.
Some in West Virginia legal circles hailed Thursday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court as a ruling that carefully adhered to the separation of power as defined by the Constitution, even if the lawyers didn't necessarily agree with the outcome of the ruling or what the act represents.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion for the majority, which upheld most parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In that opinion, most experts in West Virginia say Roberts went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that the court did not try to override the role and will of Congress. Rather, in his ruling, Roberts held firm the court's task of determining whether the bill drafted and approved by Congress and then signed into law by President Barack Obama met the standards set out in the Constitution.
Reed Rubinstein, a health care attorney with Dinsmore, said Roberts appears to have tried to maintain as much deference to congressional will in respect to enacting of the law.
"What the chief justice is saying here is however problematic the Court may believe this statute to be, he was going to go far out of his way to allow the congressional enactment to stand. That helps explain why there are some apparent internal contradictions in his opinion," Rubinstein said.
Those conflicts circle around whether the penalties and "shared responsibility payments" related to the so-called individual mandate are really a tax. While the Obama administration said repeatedly that those penalties and payments were not a tax, the Court said they basically were.
And while the Court ruled Congress didn't have the authority to mandate everyone have insurance coverage under the Commerce Clause, the Constitution does give Congress the power to impose a tax for that insurance.
"The chief justice and the four other justices ruled Congress has authority to tax doing nothing," Rubinstein said. "In other words, under the Commerce Clause, Congress doesn't have the ability to force you to eat broccoli, but it has the constitutional authority to tax you if don't buy broccoli."
Marc Williams, an attorney with Nelson Mullins in Huntington, said he wasn't necessarily surprised by the ruling, or how Roberts and the majority voted. He said ultimately Congress does have the power to levy taxes related to the financial aspect of the law, and that pending a blatant violation of the Constitution, the court must defer to the legislative branch.
"The Supreme Court only gets to intervene when a law runs afoul of constitutional provision," he said, explaining that going into hearings, the Supreme Court presumes that laws follow the Constitution. "They give it the benefit of doubt. The intriguing thing in this case is the Commerce Clause since over the years Congress has had the right to control anything because everything impacts interstate commerce."
But the Court didn't give blanket approval to everything in the health care act. Justices ruled 7-2 that requiring states to expand Medicaid coverage to people making 133 percent of the federal poverty limit or face cuts in federal funding to be unconstitutional.
In short, the Court said that threat to funding was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's authority.
"Essentially it will leave it up to states as to whether they will expand their Medicaid programs," said Jim Thomas, a health care lawyer with Jackson Kelly PLLC, adding, "Congress can't penalize states that don't expand Medicaid. But the Court did say that part of the law was severable, which means they can strike it from the rest of the act and the act can still stand."
Legal experts said there is a lot to be said about the court being deferential to congressional will when it comes to deciding a statute of this gravity.
After all, the health care law was passed by members of Congress who were elected — and in some cases, unelected — by the people. Having it overturned by a five, seven or all nine unelected Supreme Court justice who never have to answer to voters could have caused a bigger maelstrom and allegations of justices legislating from the bench.
"You have to remember what ACA does — it changes the way we get health care, raises taxes on millions of people, even imposes taxes on tanning salons and requires that chain restaurants post the nutritional content of food," Rubinstein said. "Fully implemented, it's going to have a massive impact on how society is structured. But what it will not do is lower health care costs. Not a chance."
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2013 WorldNow and WTRF. All Rights Reserved.
